But the taste of success in the mobile space has left Google hungry. Amid mostly weak tablet efforts by OEMs, Google has opted for a bold strategy that is highly analogous to Microsoft Corp.'s (MSFT) approach with the Surfaceproducts -- offering a compelling array of branded options, while continuing to offer OEMs opportunity to produce their own branded product by offering licensing opportunities.

Last Monday, the Nexus family grew into a product trio -- a phone (4-inches), a mid-size tablet (7-inches), and a full-size tablet (10-inches).

One week later, Google's John Lagerling, director of business development for Android, participated in a special Q&A session with The New York Times discussing the motivation for the expanded Nexus push.

He emphasizes the need for Android to get more aggressive in tablet pricing, calling the Nexus 7/10 price points "pretty revolutionary." Pricing was a key driver of Android smartphone adoption, and higher prices on Android tablets have been a key adoption deterrent, so this makes sense.

John Lagerling, Android business director [Image Source: Pocket]

He comments, "We did really well with the Nexus 7, I feel, because nobody really pushed the envelope with seven-inch in terms of price and performance. It really proved that category. We felt the 10-inch category was overpriced and underpowered, and we wanted to see what we could do for that from our perspective."

When it comes to subsidiary Motorola, he somewhat contradicts the past commentary of other Google brass who said the acquisition wasn't just about patents, by commenting, "The way I understand it is, it’s mostly about the patents."

Asked about why Motorola was not included in this round of the Nexus lineup, he says that they have the chance to bid on each product just like the other Android partners without a featured product. When it comes to choosing OEMs he says the variety is "not so much fairness as it is to sort of work with partners who happen to be in good “phase match” with us in what we’re trying to do."

After a frustrating stall in the tablet market, Google, much like Microsoft, is finally seeing fresh life. Not content to take a second-seat to Apple, Inc. (AAPL) and second-place Amazon.com, Inc. (AMZN), Google is finally offering hot products at alluring prices.

Mr. Lagerling summarizes, "I'll admit we’re finally much more closer to our actual vision in the past year than we have ever been."

One key issue not touched upon in the discussion is a glaring weakness of the Android market when it comes to super-HD tablets like the Nexus 10 -- a lack of super-HD-resolution apps (Apple's own selection of "Retina" iPad apps, while far from the lower resolution selection, is industry leading). Apps, of course, follow a Field of Dreams "if you build it, they will come" sort of trend, but for early adopters a smaller catalog may create headaches for Nexus 10 owners.

quote: The Nexus 10 feels like Google's open letter to developers. "Look how great Android tablets can be," the company seems to be saying, "if only you'd make great apps!" The Nexus 10's display is every bit the Retina's equal, the build quality is excellent, and it even has a half-decent set of speakers. Android 4.2 is more stable than ever, and Android does a lot of great things iOS simply doesn't. But you take it out of the box, say it's beautiful and fast... then what? Apple's tablet has 250,000-plus other apps that look and work great on a huge, high-res screen, and Android's ecosystem is leagues behind. The Nexus 10 is a great way to watch movies, but there's absolutely no way it's going to replace your laptop the way the iPad could.

Andy Rubin really needs to reverse his stance on optimizing for tablet apps (he still strongly advocates upscaling phone apps). Low Android tablet sales and Android app profitability aside, this policy from the top is seriously holding back what Android tablet apps could potentially be. The hardware is certainly there.

I can kinda see Rubin's point. Developers shouldn't expect a fixed resolution nor screen size. Apple was the biggest defender of the fixed size/resolution appraoch. The iPhone was 3.5" and 480x360, the iPad 9.7" and 1024x768, and they never strayed from these specs while Android devices experimented with all sorts of different screen sizes and resolutions. When Apple finally did bump resolution, they tried to simplify life for developers by just doubling resolution on their retina displays.

But even Apple have now abandoned that approach. The iPhone 5 sports a 16:9 1136x640 resolution, and the iPad Mini has the same resolution as the iPad 2 but on a smaller screen.

The bottom line is, developers shouldn't be developing for a specific screen size or resolution. They should be designing their apps from the outset to operate at multiple resolutions and PPI. Your phone app shouldn't be a phone app. It should be an app whose UI scales so it'll work on both a phone or a tablet, on low PPI devices or high PPI devices.

I dunno about iOS, but Android has an internal setting where the device can specify its resolution and PPI. Rubin is telling developers instead of targeting a specific size and resolution for your app, you should make your app read those two measurements and scale appropriately. It's more work for the developer up-front, but will make life much easier for them afterwards.

Yup, and with the vast sales gap, the ones that aren't, better get started on it.

Apple took the easy path just like they did with Mac's. One platform, one ship per, one vendor (themselves) a very small # of models and very little variation between generations. The PC and Androids path is more difficult. Many vendors, many chipsets, many screen res options and so on and so on.

From a high level view, the Apple cloised model looks good and it does have advantages, but the more time goes by the more the difficult route wins the game... In the end options beats lack of options. See Mac v PC for historical reference.

I'd call a doubling in performance every year while maintaining a performance lead over Android hardware, all without compromising size or battery life, is pretty substantial.

You're also looking at things backwards, the important thing isn't supporting multiple models, it is supporting developers. Windows succeeded partly because it is and continues to be one of the best platforms for developers to work on.

When developers can create great software and thrive on a platform all while making money, the cycle of great apps will continue. This is happening with iOS and the quality gap continues to be substantial. When OS/hardware/marketplace fragmentation occur on a sub-optimally performing platform based on Java, all that can really make up for things is sheer volume of customers.

Both can certainly co-exist, but there's no question that one is supported by a superior ecosystem while the other is supported by more users. Its a shame that a platform that combines the best aspects of iOS and Android, Windows Phone, seems to be relegated to a sideshow because it just can't gain any traction with customers.

The problem is Android/iOS/WP8 dev's can't design their apps to be multi-res because of the size restrictions. If they were to include a collection of icons/symbols/etc that had most of the common resolutions in them, the apps would be huge. If they were to implement code for hardware scaling of application graphics, the apps would still be huge (we're talking a lot of code) and the quality might be unpredictable.

Windows RT has it made because in Windows 8, the app size restriction isn virtually non-existant; the only resolution requirement is for the tile animations/data. The app itself scales to whatever the resolution is natively.

Where all of this is simplified is gaming. Games scale to any resolution pretty well (the "mis"-scaling isn't as noticable as with a graphics or data entry app.)

Either way, resolutions need to be standardized for other reasons than just apps.

"I'd call a doubling in performance every year while maintaining a performance lead over Android hardware, all without compromising size or battery life, is pretty substantial."

How is that a substantial change when talking about app and OS support? Its good, but not in that discussion. In fact it changes almost zero with regards to apps and OS support.

"You're also looking at things backwards, the important thing isn't supporting multiple models, it is supporting developers."

Imprtant to who? Not to me. I want better phones/tablets with better features, better screens and more versatility. Improving Androids app support to step up slightly to match IOS app support is very VERY low on most people lists.

Anyhow, study that graph carefully and do some estimations on your own.

IOS vs Android is approaching the same point where PC vs. Mac did years ago when PC's growth exploded. The difference here being that on phones, Apple had a bigger head start and on tablets even bigger still, and they have plenty money in the bank... But the wave is coming. As a developer you should stay on top of it and surf, not get left behind it paddling back to shore.

We'll see how close it gets next year. The discrepancy is still there in a huge way based on people I know who have been doing mobile apps for years and have been on the top charts of multiple platforms.

The other problem is that there is still a huge gap in the quality of tablet apps, which again I think can be remedied if there was a greater emphasis put on optimizing towards specific platforms rather than halfassing it with a generalized one. I don't like consolized PC ports of games and I like smartphone apps on my tablets even less.

Another important thing to note is that the link doesn't specify tablet apps. This thread has been all about optimizing apps for tablets and how Google should IMHO encourage developers to do a better job with their tablet apps rather than simply upscaling phone apps.

If developers target Android tablets, it helps sell more Android tablets to customers (right now the only motivator is that they're cheap), which means that it will continue to get better apps, and so on.

Everyone here seems to be arguing against something that I think would be beneficial to the platform. I don't understand why Android fans are angrily putting down a method that would obviously help their platform get up to parity with iOS on the tablet. This kneejerk angry response to constructive criticism from some people here is so strange.

I agree with you about tablet apps, good Google needs to step it up. with that said I don't think it's as bad as you think it is.advantage to Apple yes, but not a big 1 , and it's not just SD cards that give you an advantage on the Android side. aside from just more options to suit your needs, and better pricing, you have to start counting the OS. Jelly bean is just miles ahead of IOS at this point and is developing and innovating at a way greater pace than Apple has for the past 5 years. IOS is stagnating while Android is sprinting.

Thanks for the link btw. :) It shows how sheer numbers can overcome the negatives of OS/hardware/marketplace fragmentation and rampant piracy. It is also interesting how many more customers Android will require to turn up as much profit as does supporting iOS. At the rate it is growing I'm sure it'll get there.

I have nothing against android but that graph makes no sense. The source is tech thoughts, who source app annie claiming to extrapolate based on growth, yet according to app annie the growth for both platforms are the same at 14%, so over the course of a year the percentage share would still be the same. That graph contradicts its own source.

There is such a discrepancy between phone and tablet screen sizes that this doesn't really work. There is a massive difference in UI optimization and layout between the two. Something like Alien Blue, Reeder, iPhoto, or Photoshop have completely different layouts depending on whether you're on a phone or on a tablet.

Developers are already hard pressed to match the quality of their Android apps to what they release on iOS. Polishing the tablet layout with multiple panes, etc, really isn't worth it for them.

What would help is if there was a better mandate from the top in terms of optimizing UIs for tablet. Instead Rubin is pushing for a strategy that has so far failed.

Instead you're going to end up with good Android tablet hardware like what Google is showing, but with no apps. If all someone wants to do is web browse (on 16:9, ugh) then I guess that's ok, but tablets are app machines. Without apps made for tablets then they will continue to sell only in the low end.

With developers targeting apps instead of half-assing it with upscaled (and already inferior) phone versions the Nexus tablets could be so much more.

As usual, you are vastly overstating an Android issue. If you actually believe "upscaled" apps are holding them back, as if the average consumer even knows what the hell that is, I have a bridge to sell you.

The Verge are a bunch of known Apple homers, so big shock they have that opinion, and even bigger shock (sarcasm) of you linking it.

When you have more than 1 phone and 1 tablet resolution to deal with, unlike Apple developers, obviously issues like these will come up. It's not some horrible all-condemning problem though.

You've convinced yourself that a 2011 Kindle Fire is a "good tablet" and you clearly have blinders when it comes to the hardware and software superiority of the iPad, so how would you even know what software optimized for that platform is like?

Not optimizing for a tablet is one of several reasons why a cross-platform developer will have the inferior version on Android (the rest comes down to lower sales, piracy, crap app markets, OS fragmentation, the usual).

Unlike you I don't need to base all my knowledge on personal experiences, or "people I know" (something you do WAY too often). By making this about me and whatever tablets you think I own, this only shows the weakness of your argument.

In your mind an app cannot possibly be "good" if it's resolution upscales. Forgetting the fact that iOS had many of these apps when the iPad3 came out not running in it's native res, of course. Pretty sure not ALL iOS apps run in the iPad native res today. And you still herald it as the best "ecosystem". Again, double standard.

You're a known Apple homer here, and everything you say reflects that, TonyYourPoints.

This isn't about native res, this is about arrangement of the UI to be better suited for a big 10" screen (ie - multiple panes instead of a single column).

There is a huge difference between optimizing an app layout between a smartphone and tablet, and I think Google is doing a disservice to their platform by not incentivizing developers to properly format their UIs for a tablet. The result will be continued inferior apps, which in turn will be a hindrance to people buying them since the better apps will be on other platforms.

And yes, these stories from developers corroborate wide statistics. Bury your head in the sand, it doesn't change reality.

I just said "Google needs to encourage developers to make better tablet apps", and you're basically saying that people can be happy with something second rate because it isn't a problem.

I'm giving real constructive criticism and you're saying that a bad policy is perfectly acceptable. Why do you actively want your platform to be inferior?

quote: If you actually believe "upscaled" apps are holding them back, as if the average consumer even knows what the hell that is, I have a bridge to sell you.

Of course consumers know the difference between a good app and one that is upscaled. The app market is one of the biggest reasons for the iPad's success. Tablets are app machines, and consumers know when a product has the apps that they want and that it works well on the hardware.

On a side note, a developer on another board I go to got a million downloads on iOS this week, hitting the top 25. Another has been in the top 10 for months now. They both have releases on Android, made easy by Unity, and they're moving less than 1/10th of the numbers on it.

Perhaps Android users don't care about apps so they don't understand why that matters to someone who would buy an iPad. Maybe they just like talking about how free and cool Android is rather than actually using it. I dunno, but developer profits and web traffic numbers combined with so many fandroid forum posts certainly seems to support this hypothesis.

quote: This one app developer's experience is this... So here is a verdict.

Pick any mobile developer who does cross-platform development and they'll tell you the exact same thing. I can pull experiences from over a dozen, and wide polls and sales figures will back it up just the same.

And yes, app development is important to me, this is why I use Windows and OS X and not desktop Linux.

Do people who buy Android tablets just surf the web and are content with halfass ports? Perhaps they should stop using Widnows and switch to Debian. They clearly don't need apps, a web browser should be enough for them.

Yes, apps are important. I can't believe this is even a point of discussion.

We arent talking aboout apps vs no apps. We are talking about whatever 800,00k apps on IOS vs 700,000 apps on Android. There are apps that do everything on both and do it all quite well. The difference isnt all that big. Its not that apps arent importaant, its that the SMALL difference in apps isnt as important as better features, better screens and more versatility. Get it?

The difference isn't apps versus no apps, it is about having the best versions of apps as well as apps better optimized towards the form factor (phone or tablet).

I never said it was all or nothing, its all about which one is better.

If getting the second or third best version of an app on the #2 development platform is a good trade for an SD card slot (forget about missing apps), then great. I've been on both sides and I know what I'd be giving up in terms of quality, support, and flexibility by going from the iPad to an Android tablet. Throw in the iPad's faster hardware and it is a really simple choice at the moment.

If Google encouraged developers to target tablets and made it easier for them to make a profit then there wouldn't even be a discussion because the Nexus 10 would have a comparable app market, but it doesn't.

Actually, imo, the appstore is not a primary reason for low numbers or android tablets, it simply comes down to name recognition, as apple tablets have always been high quality hardware and displays, and many of the manufacturers tried to release lower quality tablets for the same money.

That just does not work when you don't have the cult following. Finally with the nexus line, you see a very nice tablet at a very competitive price, and the brand is growing. I think we are starting to see the change coming with android tablets finally taking off, which is what will get app developers to do more. They were stuck in a chicken or egg situation.

I'm waiting to see the reviews for the Nexus 4. For all things right, it seems LG might have dropped the ball on performance and, possibly, battery life. But this is based on previews and reviews of Optimus G, so I'm eager to see the real thing.

From what I am hearing, there are some optimization issues with the S4 pro in general... There are cases where the quad core S4 pro gets bested by the dual core s4, even with 2 more CPU cores and a vastly better GPU... It will get worked out. Its not even released yet.

Engadget doesn't do very good reviews but they posted a review last Friday. They seemed pretty confused by the results when compared to the Optimus G. Reduced performance and greatly reduced battery life. It seems that there may be a software problem.

quote: Amid mostly weak tablet efforts by OEMs, Google has opted for a bold strategy that is highly analogous to Microsoft Corp.'s (MSFT) approach with the Surface products -- offering a compelling array of branded options, while continuing to offer OEMs opportunity to produce their own branded product by offering licensing opportunities.

I think you have backwards which came first. Microsoft is copying what google did. Not the other way around. The Nexus line of products have been around for a while, I don't think surface is even in consumers hands yet.